This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Subramanyam, Mazdoor, O/o the Dy.E.E.(BPR), TTD, Tirupati – Involved in demanding of additional dowry from his wife and also harassing her thereby a criminal case was registered in Cr.No. 33/2007 u/s 498 A, IPC and sections 3,4 of Dowry prohibition Act – Punished with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect - Appeal filed appeal before the TTD Board – Deferred till the disposal of the Criminal Case – Acquitted in the Criminal Case by the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Tirupati – Placed before the SubCommittee on Appeals – Recommendations of the SubCommittee – Placed before the Specified Authority – Regarding. Ref: 1. Proc.Roc.No. DA2/6110/2007, dt. 06.11.2008. 2. Appeal Petition dt. 18.12.2008 of Sri B.Subramanyam, Mazdoor. 3. Res.No. 108, dt. 23.5.2009, of the TTD Board. 4. Memo Roc.No. B2/18608/2008, dt. 29.5.2009. 5. Representation dt. 16.12.2009 of Sri B.Subramanyam, Mazdoor. -
1. For his involvement in demanding of additional dowry from his wife and also harassing her, thereby a Criminal case was registered in Cr.No. 33/2007 under Section 498 A, IPC and Sections 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Sri B.Subramanyam, Mazdoor was punished with stoppage of 2 (two) annual increments without cumulative effect vide proceedings dt. 6.11.2008. 2. Aggrieved by the said orders, he filed an appeal on 18.12.2008, before the TTD Board under Section 120(i) of Act 30/87 within the stipulated time with a prayer to peruse the records, hear him and abrogate the impugned punishment orders. 3. The TTD Board in its Res.No. 108, dt.23.5.2009 deferred the appeal till the disposal of the Criminal Case pending against him. The same was communicated to the appellant vide Memo dt. 29.5.2009. The appellant in his representation dt. 16.12.2009 while enclosing the Judgment copy in CC No. 61 of 2007 requested to dispose his appeal.
No.” 7. the appellant submitted his explanation dt. the following charge was framed against Sri B. The Superintendent. In reply.2007 and sent to remand. Nil. the decision of the Disciplinary case may be taken only after finalization of the court case and requested to drop the action.2007.3.7. 3. while enclosing the 4.Subramanyam.E.2007 vide proceedings dt. was deemed to have placed under suspension with effect from the date of his arrest i. 33/2007 under Section 498 A IPC and Sections 3.e. 6.Pushpalatha and also involved in Criminal Case in Crime No. He stated that his wife after hearing the words of her brothers.e. Mazdoor (appellant herein) who was under 5. vide Article of charge dt. Mazdoor.Subramanyam. O/o the Dy.3.2007. on 13.3. 25. TTD.4 of D. Basing on the report of the S. Judicial Custody from 13. Tirupati has involved in harassing and demanding additional dowry from his wife Smt B. filed a dowry harassment case against him and sent him to jail.Subramanyam. exhibiting his grave misconduct.2007 in Cr. He also stated that he never harassed his wife for want of additional dowry and that he has constructed three portion house with his salary and also after obtaining loans from others and the brother of his wife wanted to grab the property made a false case against him. he married Pushpalatha 17 years back and he is having three children i.2007. and sections 3&4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.2007 informed TTD that Sri B. But on the contrary Sri B.. Tiruchanoor in his letter dt. Mazdoor TTD (appellant herein) on the charge of harassment and demanding of additional dowry from his wife. TTD.3. 33/2007 under sections 498-A of I. Article: “No employee shall give or take or abet in giving or taking of dowry or demand directly or indirectly from the parents or guardians or a bride or bridegroom as the case may be any dowry. Sub-Jail.6. Mazdoor.Page No. two female children and one male child. Tiruchanoor Police Station.3.E.I. Finally he stated that as the case was pending in the court. .Subramanyam. FIR informed TTD that. 8-8-07 by denying the charge stating that. Tirupati in his letter dt.2007 to 17. of Tiruchanoor Police Station. 19. Tirupati(under suspension).E.E.Subramanyam. TTD(appellant) who was arrested on 13.of Police.Act.P. 02 FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEf:The Sub-Inspector.. He was arrested on 13.2007.(BPR).(BPR). Tiruchanoor and arrested by the police on 13-03-2007 at 8-00 AM thereby violated Conduct Rule 25-A. Sri B. Mazdoor. a Criminal Case was registered against Sri B.P.7.3. O/o the Dy.C. was released on bail on 17.
In. Sri M.10. reply. Tirupati was 8.Subramanyam. U/s 498 A IPC and Section 3.No. Recorded the statements of all the relevant witnesses and appellant and submitted his enquiry report and findings. O/o Dy. Smt B. TTD. Dowry Prohibition Act is still pending in the Hon’ble Court. B. her mother tried 3 times to commit suicide. Sri B. Thus.B. 03 The Assistant Executive Officer(Inventory). was neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the statement of Smt. 2. Hence. A copy of the enquiry report and findings of the Enquiry Officer was 10. she deposed that her father was harassing her mother to bring money from her father. Mazdoor 9. During cross examination by the appellant she also deposed that he was harassing her.2007 and a Criminal Case in the Cr. communicated to the appellant.1. In the enquiry. So. the charge leveled against the appellant was partly held proved in the enquiry. Regarding. in her statement deposed that the appellant demanding Rs. 20. the appellant wife was clearly deposed that he was harassing her.10. Sri B. wife of the appellant. The entire case was lingering around the appellant having an illicit intimacy with a woman. Mazdoor.Engineer (SVIMS-I). B Maduri daughter of the appellant deposed that her father used to beat her mother and so. Father-in-law of the appellant during cross examination deposed that the appellant did not demanded dowry. Finally. Kum. Mazdoor. 12.Srinivas. the allegation of demanding of dowry by the appellant was not pressed. the charge of harassment was concerned.2008. was reinstated to duty vide proceedings dt.Subramanyam. The same were reiterated by Kum. She further deposed that he has having illicit intimacy with a woman and so he made several debts. W/o Sri B.Page No. She also deposed that her father was having illicit intimacy with another woman. the Enquiry Officer.4. 33/2007.Pushpalatha.Subramanyam. Inview of the above depositions.Exe. She also deposed that he is having habit of not handing over his salary towards the house expenses. son of the appellant. Pending finalization of the Disciplinary case. the appellant in his explanation dt. he stated that he was under suspension from 13. After examining all the facts of the case.00 Lakhs for past 10 years. Further. Further. appointed as an Inquiry Officer. observed that the allegation against the appellant for demanding dowry. TTD. 11. He conducted enquiry as per CCA Rules. .2008 submitted that his earlier explanation holds good.Gautami another daughter of the appellant and Sri B.3. the father-in-law of the appellant also deposed that the appellant has not demanded dowry.Subramanyam. but he has asked for money.Pushpalatha. Tirupati was punished with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. he requested the authorities to restore him to duty pending finalization of Disciplinary Action and the disposal of the Criminal case in the Hon’ble Court.
18. Judl.12.2009. dated: 14. 61 of 2007. Hence. the Sub-Committee on appeals after hearing the appellant in its Resolution No. the TTD Board under Section 120(i) of Act 30/87 within the stipulated time with a prayer to peruse the records. The appellant in his representation dt. 04 Aggrieved by the said orders.No.2009 recommended as follows:“Heard the appellant. the remarks on the grounds of appeal are furnished as annexure and the appeal of Sri B. the Hon’ble Court has acquitted him under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code and hence requested to dispose his appeal filed by him before the TTD Board. Accordingly the Sub-Committee on appeals during its meeting held on 14. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class.5.No.No.C. Magistrate of 1st 17. 19.12. 108. Defer to hear the appellants wife and children”.12. The Criminal case in Cr. In this regard it is to state that the IV Addl.5. dt. the Sub-Committee recommends to defer the appeal till the disposal of the Criminal Case. The main charge against the appellant is harassing and demanding of additional dowry from his wife thereby involved in Criminal Case. hear him and abrogate the impugned punishment orders.” 15. 29.Page No. On perusal of the records.5. after hearing the appellant in its Res. the Sub-Committee found that the Criminal Case was pending against the appellant in the said case.Subramanyam. . 16. before 13.2008. 7.2009 while enclosing the Judgment copy of the IVth Addl.2009. 33 / 2007 against was is still pending in the court. 16. Tirupati stated that in the Criminal Case. he filed an appeal on 18. Accordingly. Tirupati in C.5. 14. found the appellant not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC and Under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly acquitted him. Class. 23. Mazdoor was placed before the Sub-Committee on Appeals for hearing the appellant and to submit its recommendations to the Specified Authority for taking a decision. No. Hence.2010 recommended as follows:“Heard the appellant. dated: 22. 30.2009 and the decision of the TTD Board was communicated to the appellant vide Memo dt. The recommendations of the Sub-committee on Appeals was approved by the TTD Board in its Res.
The remarks on the grounds of appeal are furnished as annexure.Gr. - Res. Chairman. with the above recommendations of the appeals Sub-Committee is placed before the Specified Authority for taking the decision. No. Satyanarayana.Officer (General).220.Page No.Subramanyam. TTD Specified Authority -/True Copy/Spl. Exe. . 05 20. dated 20-01-2011 Adjourned Sd/.J. The appeal of Sri B.Dy. Mazdoor.
No. sustainable. B C . He conducted enquiry as per CCA Rules. TTD. Tirupati was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Charge was framed and Articles of charge was issued. Reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant to rebut the charge held proved in the enquiry. The explanations submitted by the appellant All the explanations submitted by the appellant and relevant from time to time may be read as part and records from time to time were taken into cognizance. he was placed under suspension. The AEO(Inventory). He failed to produce any evidence to absolve him from the charge. the Disciplinary authority punished the appellant with stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. As. Sl. Hence. 33 / 2007.e. In the parcel of the appeal petition. MAZDOOR. domestic enquiry all the witnesses i. Tiruchanoor Police Station. As such the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority are not baseless and prejudice and therefore no need to modify. wife and children of the The respondent did not go through the records appellant have clearly deposed the harassment of the furnished by the appellant and arbitrarily appellant against his wife. Recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses and appellant and submitted his Enquiry report and findings holding the charge as partly held proved.. appellant accordingly. No.REMAKRS ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF SRI B. a GROUNDS REMARKS The orders of the respondent are baseless and The contention of the appellant under this ground is not prejudicial one and they are to be modified.SUBRAMANYAM. the charge was partly held proved in the enquiry. Based on the report of the Sub-Inspector. the Disciplinary Authority punished the punished him. wherein it was reported that a FIR was registered against the appellant for his involvement in demanding dowry and also for harassing his wife in Cr.
(d) holds good.Pushpalatha. 2 lakhs for the past 2 years. ie. Though the allegation of the dowry was not proved in the enquiry. Further submitted that he never harassed his wife for dowry and with his salary and also by raising loan. His wife and his brothers some how wanted to grab the house and they made a false complaint against him in the Police Station thus he is demanding his wife to get dowry which ultimately resulted in his suspension.. In the domestic enquiry. wife of the appellant is still pending in the court. the other allegation of harassment against his wife was held proved. She also deposed that the appellant was harassing her. he constructed a house with 3 portions. 2 daughters and one son.Pushpalatha wife of the appellant has deposed that the appellant was demanding Rs. The same was reiterated by the son and daughters of the appellant in the . Further submitted that the said house was registered in the name of his wife.No. The remarks furnished for Sl. he harassed his wife for dowry. The appellant submits that as could be seen from the FIR. It is true. His submission was also concurred by the Enquiry Officer.Enginner(BPR) for the last 16 years. He was married to one Kum. in the FIR there was no mention of appellant demanding dowry from his wife.d e f g As regards the charge the appellant submits that he is working as Mazdoor in the O/o Dy. no where it is mentioned then the appellant demanded dowry from his wife. However. The appellant submits that at no point of time.Exe. as the charge leveled against the appellant was partly held proved in the Departmental enquiry. It is only a play by his brother-in-law and his wife due to ill advice of her brothers. The appellant submits that even his wife The contention of the appellant under this ground is unsustainable since in the domestic enquiry all the children of the appellant have clearly deposed that their father (appellant herein) was harassing her mother and she tried 3 times to commit suicide. Smt B. The Criminal case filed by Smt B. His wife filed a suit against the appellant that he is harassing her to get dowry with the result he was arrested. and the case is pending in the Hon’ble Court. the Disciplinary Authority punished the appellant accordingly. Pushpalatha 17 years ago he is having 3 children.
Pushpalatha against the appellant is still pending in the court. The contentions of the appellant under these grounds are not tenable. Even the Enquiry Officer also observed on the said lines in his findings. the appellant might have not demanded dowry. the police for their convenience booked the dowry case against him by exhibiting over enthusiasm. the enquiry officer found that the charge against the appellant was proved to extent of harassing his wife. the wife and children of the appellant have deposed that the appellant has not demanded additional dowry. The appellant submits that even his father-inlaw (father of the wife) also did not accept the fact that the appellant. In the instant case. Thus. Tiruchanoor Police Station acted over enthusiastically and filed a dowry case against him. Hence. servant demand directly or indirectly from the parents or guardian or a bride or bridegroom as the case may be any dowry”. The appellant submits that even though there is no dowry case against him. extending a . However. As the charge against the appellant in Departmental enquiry was partly held proved. In the enquiry. The Rule 25-A of A P Conduct rules clearly states that “No Govt. Pendency of the Criminal case in the court does not bar to proceed in the Departmental enquiry. he asked his wife to arrange money through her brother. so the Police personnel are the loosers in the case. enquiry. demanded dowry. the Criminal case filed by Smt B. The appellant submits that never be harassed his wife for money. but he has asked for money. So. he never demanded dowry from his wife. the enquiry officer observed that demanding Dowry was neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the depositions of the witnesses. but he asked for money from his in-laws. Not to speak of his two daughters and son. Further. The appellant submits that as he had debts in constructing the house. That is all.h i j k l m admitted in the enquiry that he did not demand dowry from her. due to which they failed to write about demanding of Dowry in the very FIR which is the life of the case. They also deposed that the appellant has not demanded additional Dowry. it gave scope that he was asking dowry indirectly. which appears to be convenient for them to keep him in prison. The appellant submits that the Police. The appellant submits that the Enquiry Officer did not prove the charge that he demanded dowry from his wife. the Disciplinary authority punished the appellant accordingly.
12.Board Sir.Magistrate of the orders of punishment of stoppage of 2 1st class. evidence on record that he harassed his wife for money. Inview of the remarks furnished in the foregoing paras.D.n o p benefit of doubt the enquiry officer found the allegation of demanding dowry was not pressed. In this regard. - .D.(d) holds good. Judl. for which of 2007) the court found him not guilty of the offence act of kindness he shall remain grateful to the punishable under Section 498 A IPC and under Section 3 and T. 61 increments without cumulative effect. The appellant submits that there is no Remarks furnished for Sl. hear the The appellant in his representation dt.T. But.No. the charge was partly held proved in the Departmental enquiry. The appellant humbly requests the T. by abrogating enclosing the Judgment copy of the IV Addl. The appellant submits that it is only a family No remarks. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly it acquitted him. it is to state that even though the appellant was acquitted by the IV Addl. though there is no mention in the F. Board to peruse the records. Hence.R. the enquiry officer in his findings opined the charge as partly held proved. the other allegation of harassment against his wife was held proved. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class.T. Prayer of the appellant. Tirupati in the Criminal Case. (CC No. 16. the appeal is devoid of its merits and is therefore liable to be rejected.I. Tirupati stated that in the Criminal case. affair and the Police had shown over enthusiasm and arrested him under Dowry case.2009 while appellant and allow his appeal.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.